Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Are AdBlock's Days Numbered?
An anonymous reader writes "This article discusses the ethics and the mechanics of ad-blocking software. Toward the end, it goes into some of the tech that's been built to circumvent ad blockers. Quoting: 'PageFair offers a free JavaScript program that, when inserted into a Web page, monitors ad blocking activity. CEO Sean Blanchfield says he developed the monitoring tool after he noticed a problem on his own multiplayer gaming site. PageFair collects statistics on ad blocking activity, identifies which users are blocking ads and can display an appeal to users to add the publisher's website to their ad-blocking tool's personal whitelist. But Blanchfield acknowledges that the user appeal approach hasn't been very effective. ClarityRay takes a more active role. Like PageFair, it provides a tool that lets publishers monitor blocking activity to show them that they have a problem — and then sells them a remedy. ClarityRay offers a service that CEO Ido Yablonka says fools ad blockers into allowing ads through. "Ad blockers try to make a distinction between content elements and advertorial elements. We make that distinction impossible," he says.' Is this arms race winnable? By which side?"
Beat that, suckers.
See Subject
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/serverlist.php?showintro=0;hostformat=hosts
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
Slashdot already makes distinction between content elements and advertorial elements impossible.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"Ad blockers try to make a distinction between content elements and advertorial elements. We make that distinction impossible,"
So long as you're hosting your ads off-site, or even on a local (ad.example.com) server, we'll be able to block them.
Anyone know of one these ad-blocker-blocked websites? I'd like to see what it looks like in the face of adblock plus + noscript + requestpolicy.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Exactly. Fuck Ads. Find another way to monetize. Especially you shitty sites that are doing nothing more than regurgitating articles disguised as something else for search engines. For the legit sites, sucks. Use your damn brain and iterate away from in my face ads for shit I am never going to click on and buy. Thanks.
Stop trying to infect me with malware and perhaps I'll stop blocking you from my browser.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Me and my hosts file are enough to win this war.
The Advertisers vs Ad-block arms race.
Because, let's face it... once the ad-block guys figure out how the advertisers are figuring out they are being blocked, they'll block it another way and then another way... until one side builds an a-bomb so big that the world is afraid the Internet will split in two if detonated.
That was a metaphor; no one nuke the advertisers, please. Or at least give me a few days notice so I can get to a safe distance.
If you want an add to appear on your page take ownership of it. Host it as an image file on your own website that you control and you are responsible for.
Anything else, we intend to find ways to block it, because we have learned the hard way that you cannot trust advertisers to not infect your system with malware (not always intentionally, but lets face it, that's a big source of failure).
Simple SPAM is easy to deal with, properly engineered SPAM passes through the best filters. There's no difference in the web ad market. Even if you have javascript enabled, it tends to be easy to block ads based on the hostname because ads rarely come form the same host you are visiting. Modifying /etc/hosts to point those to 0.0.0.0 solves easily the problem. And after that, you can use path regular expressions. But yeah, the ads have to be really annoying to have to reach that level.
The only way is to serve them totally statically through the same resource that all your other assets come through. E.g. /file.php?id=4167347135 is your ad and /file.php?id=517435715 is users picture, etc. If there is any possible way to distinguish the ads programatically, someone will be able to block it. However, doing this will also probably drive away a fair number of those users instead of them staying and seeing an ad riddled site.
I own my computer. I've been convincing every of my friends and family members to adopt a zero tolerance policy toward internet advertizing, partly as it's a huge security risk as seen in all recent stories about malware delivered with ads, and partly to opt out of "big data" collector activities.
Advertizers don't get it. My computer runs what I want it to, not what THEY want it to. They may make polite requests to display things, or to run things, which I can either say yes or no to.
The internet existed for decades before advertizers discovered it, and it'll be just fine - better even! - after they depart. Maybe we'll go back to its roots of crowdsourced content, rather than "big corporate content".
“It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper.” - Rod Sterling
I will no longer surf the internet. The same way I no longer watch TV.
I am bored with it now anyway.
It might just have been a very long fad with me.
For Mauricio Freitas, publisher of the New Zealand Geekzone website for mobile enthusiasts, ad blocking software has been a major headache.
Most mobile phone plans has limits, if you exceed the limit your bill goes up. Until limits are removed, at least for mobile, ad-block is a must
That's why I gots this Trace Buster BUSTER. See, when the mother-fucker tries to bust your trace with a trace buster. This mother-fucker is gonna bust the mother-fucking trace buster that's bustin' your...uh...trace!
Seriously, I haven't used adblock in a decade. If the ads annoy you that much then you probably shouldn't be going to that site.
I have three choices when I choose to view a website.
1- use an adblocker or noscript and have a crippled website.
2- use no adblocker and have some noninvasive ads.
3- use no adblocker and have invasive ads.
I can live with options 1 and 2. When I'm forced into choice 3, I'll probably stop using the site in question.
It is a fair game. If your ad banner annoys me by flicker or sound or it consumes excessive amount of cpu (==battery), then it will be blocked. No matter what the site I am visiting is. If I can not visit the site anymore due to annoying ads which can not be blocked, then I will just find another site.
If so many ads weren't obnoxious flash or javascript and simply a hyperlinked picture/text, then I wouldn't feel compelled to block them. But these so-called ads are largely intrusive and annoying and make the web browsing experience suck. Just like email and spam that have tracking linked images in them that I choose to automatically round file instead of at least checking out the content. Make the experience pleasant and controllable by me and I'll play along; otherwise, I take control with tools like adblock.
when I shut my eyes I don't see your ads
.. and NG adblockers (or browsers, full stop?) allow the contents according to the user's Web Of Trust .. ..
Chances are.. any ads that *do* get through.. will be very appropriate and welcome
-f
Sorry but when an errant ad can serve malware (see Yahoo) it's just not worth taking a chance.
Web site operators have the attitude that their revenue stream is more important than the integrity of their visitors computer.
AdBlock + NoScript is antivirus for the web.
Host your own ads - make them unobtrusive - people will still see them AND the content.
Being lazy and outsourcing it to others... you get what you deserve.
The people that are using ad-blockers are stating "I am annoyed by adds". These people seem to think it is a good idea to show the people that have flagged themselves as getting annoyed by ads more ads. That seems really really dumb.
These people should be careful what they wish for. There are many, many sites out there for people to browse on. Annoy a "customer" to much and it is very easy for them to go elsewhere.
Maybe the current crop of adblockers don't download the ads and can be monitored using JavaShit but eventually one will be created that downloads the ads but simply leaves that section of the screen blank. These days most ads are recognised by URL and that URL is usually hosted on a different server to the site itself. Future adblockers could use a thunderbird anti-spam type algorithm to visually recognise ads and match them with a database of things that people reported as ads
The race is winnable alright. Even if the end result would be the demise of "free sites" who get rich off the ads or the more recent trends of sites not getting very rich of the ads but hoping for acquisition by some supermassive company who will plaster the said site with ads until all users leave.
I am sure its because ad-blocking software is reporting your every move and building a psychological profile on you, that eventually finds its way into the hands of the government, a government, potentially many governments, terrorists, or whoever manages to hack whoever has the list that day.
what ethical issues are there with ad-blocking software that outweigh the ethical issues behind current advertising?
Wouldn't it be trivial to use the ad blocker to block the ad block detection script?
signature is pants
I use the element hider extension a lot to manually hide the advertisement divs on the websites that I visit.
So website designers are going to have to randomize the div IDs or something so that next time I revisit the page the advertisement elements aren't hidden anymore.
AdBlock and similar tools might be defeated, but nothing can defeat me not visiting the site again if the ads are too annoying. I'll put up with some tasteful ads, but too many annoyances and I just will block the site entirely.
If I see banner ads or anything else obnoxious, and I can't keep them blocked and still use the site, I'll find what I want elsewhere.
I'm ok with the text-based ads Google is known for, and I'll even click on them when they're relevant to what I'm looking for... because they're not obnoxious! They aim to be helpful!
I never buy anything unless I genuinely need/want it. It really is the truth. If I want/need it, I will pay whatever the price is at the moment. If it happens to be on sale, that's nice. If not, that has no relevance whatsoever. If I don't want/need it, I will not even consider buying it, for any price. That's just how I am.
Why not focus instead on creating a site with worthwhile content that people would actually be willing to support? Free Republic, for example, uses this business model and it's worked out pretty well for them so far.
If you have to resort to ads to support your "free" project, what have you actually accomplished?
If people are blocking your ads, it's probably because they're not interested in seeing the god damn ads. Sneaking past the ad blocker won't result in me going "gee, you got me, I'll be good and click on your ad now." More likely it will piss me off to the point where I stop visiting your site.
Stupid marketers and their "arms race" mentality was what resulted in people developing and using adblock and noscript in the first place. "What do you mean people still aren't clicking on our ads? It's got a dancing monkey with a flashing background and it occupies half the browser window! Fine, we'll make it play music too, and pop up fifty windows... maybe THEN they'll realize the error of their ways and click on it."
Procrastination Man strikes again!
We have control over our browsers...they don't!
QED
Text view is the only thing that renders, mind you.
In single column. I scroll a lot.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Sorry Blanchfield, but Adblock can fetch the ads and then simply not show them.
And Yablonka, Adbock can simply block *all* images since most are superfluous anyway and only allow through those it really trusts.
Sorry to break it to you the both of you Blanchfield and Yablonka, but no plan survives its first encounter with the enemy.
And no goddamn auto-playing sounds either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
It brings a tear to my eye to see a Big Hit reference so early.
I don't think it is a question about winnable.
It is more about how many ads that sites can force on to the users before they start loosing users and in turn money.
If sites circumvent ad blocking and force ads to the users then i think the users are more likely to stop visiting that site and instead pick another one.
So it is probably more about choice
AdBlock is something I've started installing for friends and family more as a way to block malware, than as a way to block ads outright. Poisoned ads (malvertising) account for a lot of malware installs. Just Google for iTunes or Firefox and the top ad results are malware infected installers.
Besides the incredible annoyance of ads in the slow downs they cause, they're also a dangerous pathway to malware and viruses. Common methods like embedding an iframe into a page that loads a script that targets a browser exploit to install something nasty (drive-by downloads), oneclick exploits, baiting users to download things, etc.
Ad networks—at least the slimy ones—don't care because they're getting paid.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
Pass all the ads you want. Privoxy will remove them locally. You won't know what is happening.
Content publishers who use adds to fund their website are defrauding the people paying them for displaying adds.
I don't click on adds, so by asking me to white list the adds and just ignore them they are the ones stealing from the add people.
And I don't support stealing.
I've never used an adblocker - Suppose I could, but can't be bothered.
I know ads drive the Slashdot crowd batshit bananas crazy, but f*ck, get over it. How does a 10 second ad for a Chevy ruin your life? I just tune them out...
I'll consider abandoning Ad Block when a decade after ads are no longer the leading cause of malware. Until then I consider it a security requirement along with noscript.
When you stop producing ads that take over my browser, attempt to infect my computer with malware, auto-play video and audio, and float obnoxiously over the content I actually came to the site to see, I'll consider not using an ad blocker.
Until that happens, you can go get raped by a goat for all I care.
It's not so much the annoying, sound playing, flashing adds that get to me, and finally got me to get adblock, it's the bloody constant malware/scareware/adware attacks that are being pushed through nearly ever ad company.
Until that shit stops completely, I'll continue blocking ads to the best of my ability.
When you made ads impossible to avoid, many of us will simply quit using the websites which
involve your tricks. So your page hits drop and perhaps your website also gets a "reputation"
of being a bad site to visit. Does this sound like a recipe for success ?
If what you sell is good, you don't need to intrude into people's lives with ads which bombard
the viewer. If you need ads to sell your stuff, then maybe your stuff shouldn't exist in the first place,
because the last thing this world needs is more useless crap wasting resources.
I can't wait for true augmented reality that will let me block ads in meatspace as easily as online
I not only block ads, but I also block websites whining about blocking ads and any other form of begging (element hiding helper ftw)
If you don't want me looking at your site, then don't have your server respond when my browser makes a request for the pages.
All advertisements are spam, and the people who work in the industry figuring out new ways to invade people's minds should take Bill Hicks' advice.
I have been running adblock fo some kind for almost 20 years on my desktops. On my android devices, I haven't spent the time necessary to find a reasonable adblock solution, and wow is the web and entirely different (and much shittier) experience.
Have no doubt, a primary reason for device lock down is to prevent users from circumventing advertisement spam.
I do not disagree with ads per se, given how they function in the internet economy. But the level of intrusiveness of adverts is the problem. For a long time I actually resisted ad blocking technology, since I agree with the idea that one should support what they use, and if this is by seeing adverts, so be it. When it came to Vibrant ads, however, a line was crossed. Having floating divs appear when moving my mouse to click a link (and the div obscuring the link) and stuff like that is too intrusive, and not on.
There needs to be a solid code of ethics for where adverts are acceptable and where they're not, and if that is not sufficient for certain lines of business, then those lines of business should just disappear off the web. If ad blocking software had a clear code of ethics, and maintained a blacklist of sites that crossed it, and that only those sites got ad-blocked, and would be unblocked once they got back in conformance with the code of ethics, things would be better. If that was enforced by government regulation like the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, or suchlike then things would be better.
At present, advertisers do not have a regulating authority that controls how intrusive they can make advertising, and thus there is a need for technology like ad-blocking to avoid this. If sites use Javascript or log-checking to try and catch ad-blockers, I can see an arms race developing. We do not need that. What we need is for advertisers to be more gentlemanly, less greedy, and above all, to behave and be civil about how they go about their business. Until they do they get no sympathy from my end. It is right that those who misbehave should be put at a disadvantage.
John_Chalisque
I notice that some try to appeal to the User's better nature to let the Ads on through. I wonder if perhaps, I don't know, PAYING the user to accept Ads should be part of the solution. Nothing like money to drive viewership!
This article discusses the ethics and the mechanics of ad-blocking software
Ethics of blocking advertisements?
Gimme a fucking break.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I've never spent a single penny on anything that was advertised through a webpage that threw an ad up at me. Just try bypassing that!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Instead of asking folks who have gone to the effort of putting in an adblocker to turn it off, maybe ask them for as much as the ad folks pay per eyeball?
It may not be obvious to the /. crowd, but nobody uses ad blockers. Of the people I know, I am the only one who does.
If a website goes to the trouble of preventing ad blockers for such a tiny demographic, chances are high that I'm not interested in their "content" anyway (if there is any).
I'd warrant (but don't have the statistics to back me up) that the typical ad-block user would be less prone to click on ads if forced to see them than a typical surfer. I don't see why these crybaby advertisers are so desperate to reach a market that would have low click-through rates. The advertisers win by not needing the extra bandwidth necessary to serve up ads to people that wouldn't click on them anyways.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
...advertisers have proven over and over that they can't be trusted. That many are scummy and lie, or worse, they attempt to inject malicious code. I block ads because I want to avoid that minefield entirely.
Thank you! A million internets to you.
Sites that I frequently visit are disabled, maybe they shouldn't be trying to sneak in ads and try to make them seamless and not as sketchy.
Several times, in several different ways I found the question asked ... is it ethical to block ad's. My response: You are asking the wrong question: Is it ethical to track me without my permission? Is it ethical in inject mal-ware into my system? Is it ethical to not allow me access to information you claim is about me? Is it ethical to make money on my actions -- without a reward for me?
Stop messing with MY system, and I'll stop messing with your ad's.
Any site that I use more than once a week, I add to the AdBlock whitelist. However! If I get an annoying ad on that site, it goes back to the blacklist, for at least a month or two. Basically, until the guilt starts creeping in that I'm using their service without paying for it. If you want to remain on the whitelist, and get my page impressions, then don't use shady advertisers that use self-expanding ads, auto-play ads, and especially flashing or noisy ads.
The first time I mouse over something and it pops up an image or animation is the last time I visit that page. Noscript + Adblock haven't failed me in a long time. When they do, I'll have to resort to other means (blacklists).
I've seen a couple of those sites that ask very nicely to please allow their 1 or 2 unobtrusive ads. I always give them one chance. I disable Adblock, refresh, and then, invariably, an animated banner ad pops up. Guess what? Your flashing banner right next to text I'm trying to read is very effing annoying. I find being lied to way more offensive than the 20 porn ads and malware links on bittorrent sites.
Google kindly passes on banners and instead throws in ads disguised as search results. No thanks. (Fanboiz say, "No no! If you look very carefully and from the exact ideal viewing angle for your monitor you will notice a purple background on the ads!" Spare me.)
Penny Arcade used to have a strict policy of not allowing any animated ads, and even only advertising games they personally played and thought were good (now that is more scrupulous than even I ask for!). I didn't block them. But then sure enough they added animation like everyone else.
I'm not sure I'll continue even giving sites the one chance. It is theoretically possible for a site to put up ads I wouldn't block (non-animated, non-manipulative, not for stupid bullshit that shouldn't exist), but none of them ever do, so why waste my time checking?
I press ctrl shift K and look around, then I can disable javascript in that tab if I want. What ever happened to the "disable java" option in the options menu?
Mostly random stuff.
Yes I realize that many a site and site owner is kept alive by the revenue generated from ads but you know what, I don't care. Since I started using ad blocking software my internet experience has improved immensely, I despise marketing, it is manipulative propaganda, and the vast majority of it has little if any relevance for me as a consumer and yet there it always was, until I found the wonder that is ad blocking. Now when I read a website I am not distracted by ads I never wanted to see in the first place, and when I watch a Youtube video, I see no car commercials, no public interest commercials, no pharmaceutical commercials, no political commercials, and no military commercials, just the video that I wanted to watch, what a concept! It is a wonderful experience ad free web browsing, and I hope to experience it for a long time to come.
Thank you Adblock for making web browsing enjoyable again.
I use noscript in a deny all by default config with only a dozen sites even white listed. Any website that figures out how to get around noscript gets added to my hosts file as a malware site and I never visit again.
As someone else at the top pointed out, any site that refuses to load due to needing javascript gets looked at temporarily then blocked and forgoten about as it's usefulness is questionable. Sorry but I don't run scripts by default due to the many pop-ups/unders I've suffered in the past and I don't run IE for the same fucking reason.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
How about fuck you. I don't want to see your ads. If I do see your ads I write down who you are. And then if I see you again on a site I do business with, that site that would have actually got my money, gets an email instead saying that since they associate with you I will no longer do business with them because of you and your ad.
So yeah, fuck you. Go away.
already being done
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-anti-adblock/?src=search
For every person who uses ad-block on principle, there are ONE THOUSAND people who reluctantly use ad-block because current web ads are abusive in every possible way.
-ads that serve malware, quite deliberately, even from industry giants like Yahoo
-ads that steal massive amounts of system RAM to load video in the background
-ads that steal massive amounts of CPU resources, just so they can implement trivial animation
-active ads that use Flash or similar, and are effectively mini-apps
-ads that take over the web page
-ads that 'mouse steal', launching offensive blaring giants ads if the users mouse accidental passes over their control region
-ads that illegally stalk you from site to site
No site, in my experience, uses ads responsibly. Oh, for sure, a tiny number of sites, when their users in disgust all opt for ad-block, do then (and only THEN) respond with a brief period of railed back, less offensive ads- but that soon changes if enough visitors are sucker enough to trust them again.
I only see unblocked ads on Android, and there I am DISGUSTED to find that the very worst ads, all found on the biggest legitimate free apps (like Dolphin browser) are all attempts to download MALWARE, like 'virus' scanners.
Why didn't the web industry set standards for ads, and penalties for web ad companies that provide bad ads of ANY sort? Stupid question. The malware gangs from Israel and Ukraine territories all have the strongest ethnic links with those in the web-ad serving business, and the one hand wahes the other. When, for instance, one considers the owners of Yahoo, there is ZERO surprise at Yahoo serving malware to THREE MILLION computers across multiple days- conveniently outside the very dangerous legal jurisdiction of the USA.
The Internet ad business is 85%+ a VERY serious criminal enterprise, and sane users want to block such criminality from their computers. In no other area of media has the ad business been allowed to be so blatantly criminal. The scum who moan about ad-block should be grateful so many fools don't use this option. In my direct experience, the single greatest reason for people replacing their PC has been because malware served by ads has chocked their machine so badly, they felt they had no other choice but to start over with a fresh machine. You and I know how to keep dangerous and disruptive crap of our machines, and how to flush any garbage that sneaks on. Ordinary users do not- and can they be blamed for being victims of such criminal enterprises?
My network connection.
My computer. My CPU. My RAM.
My video card.
My monitor.
My electricity.
I fucking paid for every cent of it.
So stay the fuck off my lawn.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I want to find a way to have something, perhaps Squid, download the ads on sites I like but not actually display them.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Make them text or basic images like JPG or GIF (but then they couldn't hijack your speakers and blow your ears off, what fun is that?) and NO FLASH ADS because flash zero days are one of the biggest attack vectors out there
I agree, as does the featured article: "In addition, users who dislike the distraction of Flash-based advertising can install browser add-ons that just block Flash content, such as Flashblock for Firefox and Chrome." Flashblock for Firefox is the middle ground that I've been choosing for years. And before that became available, I had a practice of hosts-blocking any ad server that served SWF on a site. Slashdot was surprisingly one of the first sites I saw that showed an SWF ad for Splunk log analysis software, and whatever server was serving it was the first to get 0.0.0.0'd in my hosts file.
(but then they couldn't get "teh big bux" for having the most annoying Goatse of ads spewed on their pages)
Yeah, the article quotes the VP of some web advertising consulting firm who whines that static ads have an unviably low CPM. Boo hoo.
Good luck running, say, any browser-based video game without Flash or JavaScript, and good luck running non-browser-based video games that aren't made for your computer's operating system. Or do you claim that all browser-based video games are inherently not worth my time?
"We make that distinction impossible," - Totally illegal in sweden. You must make sure that the reader can distinct between content and advertisment. Regardless if it is consumed on computers or on paper.
I understand that site content has to be paid for somehow, and so long as the ads that back it up don't
I have no problem letting the ads through. There are less than 10 sites whitelisted in adblocker. Everyone gets ghostery'd.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
Nobody is forced to buy from a specific company (exclusive supply contracts or biased tender processes aside)
Copyright is similar in effect to an "exclusive supply contract". If the article you're interested is on a scriptwalled site, and no other article is authorized to carry the article, too bad.
There is a simple solution to web sites that annoy me with too much advertising, blocking my adblockers, forcing scripting, plugins etc...
I just stop going there.
No customers and they lose big time. There are alternatives to virtually everything. If advertisers make themselves too annoying they'll go extinct.
I never understand this. It's obvious to anybody with 2 IQ points to rub together that somebody who employees adblocking software IS NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR FUCKING PRODUCTS. How, then, by going around his blocks and stuffing this shit in front of his eyes do you believe that suddenly he will be unable to resist your ad. He will resist your ad and will only get even more pissed about your company. Is this really a wise thing for you to do?!?
Who cares about Facebook?
People who want to use websites that require Facebook login. It is impossible to post on Answers.com or The Huffington Post without having a Facebook account that is "verified" (tied to the unique number of a phone capable of sending and receiving SMS messages). Spotify used to be the same way.
You're referring to the policy in place since the second quarter of 2002, correct?
Then you wouldn't be interested in sites like Netflix that let subscribers stream movies like The Wizard, which is a 90-minute ad for the Nintendo Entertainment System.
I thought everyone noticed now that a browser is not a decent platform to run a multi-megabyte Office replacement on.
You do own your computer, but zero tolerance is stupid. You have a choice to click or not. Content providers have a right to display on your computer when YOU request their site. If it's a malware site, it gets blacklisted by multiple entities and browsers. Since you're on slashdot, zero tolerance by an anonymous coward means you're getting fed ads. If you're not getting ads, you installed some software to prevent that, and that activity means you tolerated it more than zero. If you truly believe in zero tolerance, gtfo slashdot and nearly every other popular website out there including google search, youtube, yahoo, etc.
I will state that if a website uses anti-adblock software that bypasses my blocking in any way, I immediately close the page. I do not need their service enough that I will suffer their bullshit. This, in contrast to "zero tolerance" is my balking rate to annoying manipulation and my curiosity never gets the best of me. If I'm reading an article, and 15 seconds later an opaque ad comes up, I close the page and blacklist the site. Some sites even bypass noscript or make it unreadable without javascript, and noscript comes with its own set of problems making many web pages unusable (even with "temporarily allow all on this page") due to xss protection among other things.
You have that choice of what to browse, and content providers have a choice of how to market. Forcing ads onto people unwilling to view ads is a very low percentage market, therefore there is no reason to pretend there's some sort of arms race. There isn't.
The overall point is that spending money to market to people who not only don't want your ads, but will actively blacklist your entire website if it's too obnoxious (*cough*upworthy*cough*) means marketing money poorly spent. If adblock software is intentionally rendered ineffective, those websites will get far fewer visitors. They will lose money.
thing is, the advertisers will never do that - simply because their business model relies on tracking impressions and so forth. Hence they have to serve the ads on their own web platforms.
Then each publisher (operator of a web site that includes ads) could make a subdomain that is a CNAME (DNS-based alias) pointing at the ad server. In this way, the ad server will share the same public suffix as the rest of the publisher's site. So how will your browser be able to tell it from a subdomain that's actually operated by the publisher?
No, its days are not numbered. Thank you.
So how would a small-time publisher (such as an individual with a blog) who doesn't fly much get his key signed by someone who lives out of his home town? That's the problem I've always had with the concept of a web of trust: while each city can become strongly connected, the few people who travel often act as bottlenecks in the trust graph. In addition, I have some doubts about the transitivity of trust. Just because you verify someone's identity doesn't necessarily mean you trust him or her to verify other people's identity.
Let me see if I get this straight:
The company proposes tools that affect users that took steps to change their browsing experience of your website.
The apparent goal is to get the browsing experience of these users back in line with the intended browsing experience.
Is that correct?
Did none of them consider that
a. these users are actually aware of their browsing experience, and so will notice changes,
b. these users are actually active, and so will not hesitate to take steps if improves their browsing experience,
c. that a subset of these users (that will notice (a) that you're blocking their adblocker, and (b) thwarting their steps), will migrate elsewhere?
Weird.
Anyway, another aspect of this that I never understood: users that select themselves that they don't want to see any ads sounds like a dream for the advertisers. No need to spend any money on reaching that one.
The only argument I can currently come up with against this, is the "but we will convince you anyway" argument.
Is that it? Is that the ultimate reason adblockers are evil? Because they prevent advertising companies from the chance to change the minds of those who have no interest in ads?
Advertisers see the writing on the wall. They're selling buggy whips, and they know you have no use for a buggy whip, but godammit they want to force you to buy a buggy whip!!
A-la-carte ad-free streaming TV is starting to appear. Once the public gets a taste of ad-free user-paid content, more and more people will start abandoning ad-sponsored services, and the ad-sponsored market will implode.
tl;dr: The web is about to fork into paid-subscription vs. ad-sponsored. You will pay for your content one way or another.
And revive my list of advertising hosts to point to 127.0.0.1 in my local hosts file.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
My router at home runs pixelserv, blocking creepy domain to leak anything on my LAN. It needs a little bit of work to setup and tune, but does a great job.
Because of Malware Ads, Adblock may-be neccessary. But if I predict the future Adblock will lose because the problem with Malware will be fixed!
And even if it become really hard, you have to be pretty confident about the appeal of your website.
I can understand why they want their ads to go through, but if some webmaster take aggressive action to force the hand of the user, there's a little side effect called "not going to this site anymore" that might hurt them somehow.
I've been using adblock+ and NoScript for quite a few years now. The reason is all the ANNOYING ADS!!! Stuff it. Ads are the biggest reason I QUIT watching TV. If I want something that's what Google, eBay, etc are for. Thank you, I'll find it myself. And now there's this reason as well. A co-worker asked which browser I used at home. Firefox I replied. How many add-ons? About 30. Your favorite? Adblock+ and NoScript. You know sites make money with ads. I know. Why use them then? When the advertisers start paying a portion of my Internet bill for them using my bandwidth I'll quit using AdBlock+ and NoScript. Nuff said. PS. AT&T... FUCK YOU.
I'm imagining a TakeNoPrisonersScript that pounds each ad with clicks, say, a dozen times. Eventually, clicks will no longer mean anything to the advertisers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, I always figured that AdBlock would eventually force the ads to be delivered from the same server as the content, and to force the ads to be fully integrated into the content. It will probably also force ads to have some kind of random component, similar to the way spam/viruses/etc. morph to evade detection.
This reminds me of the trend toward ad placements within TV shows and movies.
It also reminds me of antibiotics. We live in a brief and remarkable period of human history where antibiotics can work. Same with AdBlock.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't like blocking ads. And if assholes weren't making noisy ads that interfere with my browsing experience.
So you want to defeat ad blocking software, stop making noisy ads.
And I imagine why a lot of other people do to.
Those of us with low bandwidth can find our internet experience severely hampered by ads. Especially the obnoxious video/sound embedded ones. Loading those in can take quite a long while when you live in the middle of nowhere at the end of the dsl line.
It's even worse on sites like Youtube. I have tried to go without it, but the video ads made viewing anything on there nearly impossible, with the high resolution and the way they load. It makes it an unwatchable experience.
It isn't really fair to the content creators I know. But if they don't have a way to offer ads to people with low bandwidth, then there isn't a lot I can do about it without rendering the internet a much less pleasant place for myself.
Selfish? Not sure, really. Just my reasoning.
Your move, bitches.
It's amusing that advertisers are talking of ethics, as if they're some sort of moral guardian. Remember, these people want to sell you things. They don't give a shit whether you can afford it, or whether it might harm you, or whether it causes damage or loss somewhere down the line. Going back to Edward Bernays, advertisers have used psychology to essentially manipulate the customer into buying their goods.
Look at the lengths that advertising platforms have gone to in order to make their ads relevant. Facebook, Google and the like have all gone to extraordinary lengths to maximise their ad revenues, often to the detriment of user privacy. Mining emails and messages for keywords to use in advertising isn't ethical in my opinion. Nor is tracking me with third party cookies, or with Google's new adID system.
I'm not saying they're all that bad, or even that I object to minimal, low overhead text based advertising. If an advertising agency was launched that only served simple text ads without incessant tracking I would unblock them quite readily. I understand that sites need revenue. However, suggesting I have an ethical obligation to expose myself to such an unethical industry in exchange for content doesn't wash with me.
Introduce advertising with a better ethical compass, and I will respond in kind by viewing it. Until then, the adblockers stay.
I don't mind ads if they're non-intrusive. Slashdot gives me the option to not have ads, but I let them through anyway. Gizmodo and Yahoo (mobile) have painfully annoying ads. I block them when possible. But in Yahoo (mobile) when I can't block I just go somewhere else. Has anyone look at the recent Google search result page? Fill with so much advertising. I've done a lot more of my searches over at DuckDuckGo. I don't mind a little banner ad or side ads, but don't try to take over my screen or play sound.
In the midst of all this, I feel it is necessary to point out that as far as I can tell, MySpace is the first large company to go horribly horribly wrong, and then get their stuff together and fix it.
ITT: neckbeard fury
i wouldn't run ad blocking add-ons if sites didn't purposely using flashing, brightly colored, mentally aggravating ads that are meant to be as conspicuous as possible.
Look i don't like ads, commercials, billboards, the constant bombardment of corporate marketing pushers trying to influence my every thought and decision and i try to avoid them as much as possible, but i understand the need to funding for sites that run on ad revenue, and i don't mind seeing ads here and there and supporting sites through those ads, but i'm not going to have them shoved down my throat or successfully get my attention through aggravation, it starts with me just blocking them because they are so overtly annoying and disrespectful of the reason im there (to read an article or find information about a subject) and ends with me never visiting their site again...
Replying to my own post here.
Last sentence should be "So losing people with ad block doesn't hurt the company's bottom line at all."
The Preview button is there for a reason, you stupid douchebag of a fucking nigger bitch.
Whenever I'm reading through a story and realize that I'm being marketed to, it just makes me so angry. Whenever that happens I try to take the edge off it by relaxing with the smooth flavor of a Chesterfield cigarette. Mmm. Smooooooth.
Advertisers need to realize that *I* am the ad blocker, not the script I installed. The script just makes it *easier* to manage.
As for ads ... if they weren't so abused in the first place (pop-ups, pop-unders, flashing, auto-run-sound, slowing-down-the-entire-page, redirect-on-close, etc) then there wouldn't be such a large movement to block them.
This is the root of the problem. If advertsments had behaved themselves, there would be no story.
Adblock went right back on.
I don't mind ads. I understand this stuff isn't free and I'm willing to put up with them provided they aren't going to scream in my ear. But the ad makers don't seem to be willing to adjust their side of the equation.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Kind of depressed that sites aren't moving more towards Flattr (http://flattr.com)
I'll just turn off AdBlocker so their attempts to circumvent it will fail!
Oh wait ...
the question isn't 'how to block advertising'? Shouldn't it be "Why does anyone bother with advertising?" (obviously malware-loaded ads are a diiferent issue). How many people actually take notice of an intrusive ad on a website? Personally, I'd be far less likely to use a company or service that intruded, unasked, into my 'web experience'.
I have yet to see an ad for anything that made me think "Ooh, I need to buy that" or "Ooh, I need to watch that TV show, read that book, watch that play, listen to that music etc etc.". Most of the ads I see are either for things I can't afford, like flashy cars, things I don't want, things of dubious value (loan sharks), or the old standby "Local Mom finds way to make a fortune, cure cancer, grow huge breasts and whiten teeth using this one simple trick". It's a waste of time and offensive. Now you could argue that should allow the advertising just to support the poor impoverished website owner. The problem with that is that it is supporting the whole "advertising funded paradigm that I find wasteful and offensive. Sadly, I'm having a problem thinking of what the answer may be (lets face it if I could I would make my fortune) we don't want a pay-per-view web but we also don't want the advertisers peering into our souls to tailor ads to what interests us.
Weird now a days, so host files work great for me IMHO
People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
... until my Adblock Plus no longer works. Because I can not stand intrusive advertising when I'm trying to read something. So I will have to quit wasting enormous gobs of time on the Web. I quit TV 15 years ago because of abusive advertising (mostly). If adblockers get nullified, I will seriously curtail my web browsing.
Your loss, fuckers!
This is actually a good example of where regulation probably would have helped. To skim the game theory element of this, there was an arms race among advertisers for increasingly intrusive ads, with any firm that did not participate seeing its revenue vanish because its competitors would. No one could depend on voluntary industry regulation since any company breaking ranks would make out like bandits and all the companies playing nice suffer. Thus you had the classic race to the bottom since the reward structure punished otherwise.
Regulators did not step in, industry regulation was broken, so consumers found a way to deal with the problem, but it was a way that hurt the whole advertising ecosystem.In a very real way, industry fighting against the idea of an external entity keeping everyone in check doomed us all.
they are informative and worth looking at. If they are just spam and cluttering the screen (the majority) then they are blocked.
If a site had non-annoying ads I whitelist. Especially if it's site i want to support. Sometimes I see those "Please unblock us" and I usually do. anyone willing to ask is willing to police their ads. That said I'm not above taking them off the list if something changes. Heck sometimes if I'm feeling generous I'll open an ad in a new incognito page. Just for kicks. After all I'm not giving money to websites. I might as well throw them a quarter or whatever. Some sites "pay me" after all with contests and such that I've won pretty regularly on.
Just another second banana
Welcome to the hostfile mutha'
The thing they refuse to get is that many of us, myself included, don't mind seeing a few ads. But multiple ads with motion, or one of my real pet peeves, like an almost full page floating around abomination from teh likes of Yahoo, are just too much. And with pushing ads from unknown outfits, that often carry malware, sorry, your webpage isn't all that necessary for me to view.
A month or so ago, I did some experiments, turned off all the scripts with no script. Went to a few sites - I forget which right now, but it was something like the New York times. Of course the page didn't load correctly. So I turned off all the scripts. Still didn't show up. Ther ewere more scripts that wanted run. Did this many 5 times before the site showed. There were 20 plus something scripts running, almost all of them tracking scripts. One fonting script.
Between forcing ads on us, and tracking scripts, all I have ot say is no thanks - I need to see your site less than you need me to see it.
Welcome to my hostile, NYT. And other sites that insist on being a pain in the backside.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Use lynx, it gets rid of all the ads, graphics, music, animation, etc., leaving only information behind to read. Youtube kind of sucks with it though.
I can name two... (CORALized, to prevent Slashdotting them into oblivion!)
http://www.wphafm.org.nyud.net/
http://www.mymorninglight.org.nyud.net/
(NOTE: NYUD is adding some kind of script. The actual sites, themselves, DO NOT HAVE ANY.)
How does a 10 second ad for a Chevy ruin your life?
By incurring data overages. Web page: 0.1 MB. Web page with video advertisement: 1 MB or much more. This tends to add up when a satellite or cellular ISP gives each subscriber only 5000 MB per month. And as others have mentioned, malware authors like to install their crap through Flash Player vulnerabilities.
This is why the push by major ad companies like Google for ubiquitous broadband.
Once average speeds hit an acceptable point (probably no more than a year or two off), all 'static' content (ie non-video) will be rendered on the server, merged with advertising content, and then sent out to the user as a solid block, probably an imagemap with hotspot data, a second 'reactive' image and some javascript so it all gels and has feedback.
Whole web pages could (and will, I'm sure) be rendered this way. Just leave spaces for the browser to insert widgets and video and you're done.
Of course, more sophisticated ways of detecting and blanking out ads in the image data will probably be developed, but it will make the ad-removal process much more difficult. On the bright side, ads delivered this way will be exclusively still images (unless animated PNG catches on), which are at least less annoying than animated ads or video clips.
Maybe the average adblock user will find this 'balance' acceptable, and see no need to block still image advertising when it appears in this fashion?
If you use Facebook with Adblock, it blocks the ads, but there is a script that spins eating 100% of a core (very noticeable on a one core machine).
Is there really anything else that most of us need besides:
Text of something we'd like to read
A graphic or video we'd like to watch (and maybe download instead of viewing in browser)
A simple way to communicate with other users of a site if you're so inclined.
A way to query a site that has a database with things that interest you (ex: dating profiles, movie information)
Sorry for the rant below, but AdBlock's days are not numbered. Maybe the actual AdBlock named plug-in is, considering what we've seen about the author accepting money to allow certain sites to bypass it's filtering. But as long as we can render the content in our browser, and aren't locked into a server-side static page with no controls on it, there will be a way around it. And even in that scenario, someone will come up with a database of popular sites and where they place things, and how to automatically draw a nice big black square over anything they try to show us.
The exceptions I can think of are "e-retailer" sites, government service sites, work related sites (kind of).. and not even these need anything fancy.
As ugly as sites were in the 90's, when they were made well they loaded fast, didn't use tricky obfuscated code to track and quantify every last bit of data, try to access every possible thing it can from your machine, and didn't (mostly) slaughter you with ads. Phishing on the web was stupid at that time, it seemed no one would fall for it, so it was better to do it via IM and e-mail. Now with all of the fancy useless junk that's been cluttered onto almost every site it's easy to make something look official. I almost want to look intensively at the source of any site I use regularly and have to of course use Ghostery, Ad-Block, Flashblock, NoScript, TrackMeNot, etc. Even my own darned browser is harvesting things on me I don't want them to (glad I switched from Chrome). This glittery, shiny, slick, smooth, beautiful new web, has the most disgusting, horrid, evil, malicious, putrid sort of foundation hiding beneath it's surface. I'd like to see the web go away, really. Too many people think "the web" = "the internet." There must be a better way for us to get the information we want, accomplish the tasks we want, and communicate without using trumped up scrollable desktop publishing documents that have way too many elements incorporated into them than necessary. tl;dr Big Evil has found great ways to masquerade as a white knight with the ability to hypnotize like a stereotypical TV of old, while really screwing the users and laughing to the bank. And almost no one realizes it outside of tech vets.
Advertising is cool. Adblock is cool. Adblock-blocker is cool. But then they will just make the Adblock-blocker-blocker.
The best advertising is embedded advertising - like when Dexter always sits behind a Mac. It is probably less easy to block too.
Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein
** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!
*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"
...apk
Get a Explative backbone and stop visiting sites that do this to you if you don't like it. Email the advertiser and tell them you are boycotting thier product because of the annoying ad. If you sit around posting shit here and don't do anything you deserve what you get. Most of the shit on the web we Idoly browse is probably crap (yellow journalism crap) any way and a real content provider will listen if not, they don't need your business. If you don't like the tactics involved make sure you activly hate the companies that particpate... they don't love you, they love your money and maybe you can affect a change in them.
I have never, in my life, intentionally clicked on a blinking crappy noisy flash advertisement or even an animated jpeg.
I never will.
If your site doesn't display any content when I visit it with adblock and noscript, then I'll just go somewhere else. Sorry, but there's no way you can force me to view your obnoxious ads, and attempting to do so will just make me hate your company and go out of my way to avoid your products.
Just ask ArsTechnica how it worked out for them when they tried to pull that crap and then got beligerant towards their longtime readers when they called them on it.
I would, but haven't read their site since.
- --
"I Hate Quotes" -- Samuel L. Clemens
The reasons I use ad-block are 1. because sites like the Pirate Bay have pornographic ads all over them, which is really unpleasant, and 2. Some sites have ridiculous ads everywhere that produce sound, animate, make things annoying to read when you see random words with two underlines and slow down your browser. If everybody used simple sidebar and banner ads without the typical annoyances they sometimes harbour, I don't think there would be a need for ad-blocking and it's likely advertising would become more effective and therefore, worth a lot more.
You already managed to get somebody to read your lame site, there are hundreds of the same quality garbage, now you want them to view your crappy ads? Yeah WTF up, right?
The ad block detection would have to be a fail open type event. If the server doesn't receive a proper hit from the ad script your browser is running then you get shunned because your browser didn't load it. The real solution is listed previously... ad blocker needs to download the javascript from the advertisers but not show it and disallow some of the more dangerous functions (changing urls in the load function could be disabled by default perhaps?). We know the advertisers aren't going to fix the issue with malware, I mean where's the money in that?
1) No auto playing/downloading videos 2) Guaranteed maximum byte payload for adverts 3) Guaranteed no malware 4) Crowd down-voting capabilities to target poorly performing/mis-behaving ads There has to be a happy middle ground. I really don't care if ads and marketing links are tastefully deployed on a site. It's the massive performance hit and the malware that annoys me enough to deploy countermeasures.
Fuck Ads. Find another way to monetize.
Enjoy paying $9.95 for a 30-day pass to each web site. NYT and WSJ already headed this way when the ads weren't paying enough.
What ever happened to the "disable java" option in the options menu?
Java is disabled by default because Oracle neglected to clean up security holes in its VM. Firefox 23 hid the "Disable JavaScript" option because it would cause excessive support costs when people "Disable JavaScript" and end up discovering that all their add-on applications have stopped working.
Not if the ad blocker detection script returns the key for decrypting the text of the page. Working around that would violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in Slashdot's home country.
So, after glancing over (I said glancing) this thread and it's comments.
One thing stands out:
many folks wants to block ads to prevent malicious software, mal ware.
the advertisers want to host ads third party to track effectiveness at a central location.
Does this not point to a break down in the web infrastructure?
As a "new" web developer with a much heavier server side (Microsoft...heresy around here in some camps I know, but fruitful for me)..I personally find web development fraught with many problems and frustrations. Fuck, the difference in browsers alone is enough to drive you insane. HTML, CSS, Javascript, jQuery, d3 (very specific I know)..but the idea is valid. Every layer built on each other, fragile and awesome just the same. How long can the web exist in this state?
This question may be a tad off topic but damn, I'm serious. My observation is that developing for the web in it's current state represents one of the largest wastes of human effort ever, and machine clock cycles as well. When will all come crashing down...or get better?
I got an eye opener a few months ago when I improved a new Windows laptop by installing Firefox. In the few seconds that the system (with Firefox) was without AdBlock, I got totally shocked as to how horrendously and utterly unusable most of web pages I frequent were with ads not removed.
If I had to choose between using these pages with ads, or using them not at all, I would simply choose the latter and go on for a site that actually does behave.
The same will hold here; pages that succesfully sidestep AdBlock, the most important thing on the web after Firefox, I will simply add to the blacklist.
From the FA: "Viewing ads is part of the deal if users want content to be free, says Freitas. The use of ad blocking software breaks that implicit contract."
I love this argument. I recall a high-profile libertarian making the same argument (after which I stopped going to his site). Contract? Tell you what - put your site behind a password-protected page and I'd agree about the contract. But if your site is publicly accessible there is no contract and you know it.
I've been using a hosts file for years. Best thing I ever did.
Works across the system and not just a browser. Awesome. http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
Adblock doesn't block as much malicious content as hosts & is dead per the article (article submitter here): Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work, where adblock will fail when this is implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time) & they do a LOT MORE FOR YOU as the end user consumer of the internet also - period/no questions asked...
...apk
Sandbox blocking to download all the adds before deleting them with stylish by element manipulation. Not only do you keep the page clean but you cost ad services money which I love.
I have lived in the US for 39 years and I have to say that I have seen and heard enough ads for several lifetimes. I'm full. I cannot take any more. Services like Netflix, Pandora (paid with money) and SomaFM (No ads and free, but I donate anyway) are freaking AWESOME to people like me. Paying for a service by viewing or hearing advertising ruins the experience for me.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
Ads on even reputable sites have been shown to install malware. Until advertisers can guarantee a safe ad experience, they can go die in a fire.
Adblock doesn't block as much malicious content as hosts & is dead per the article (article submitter here): Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work, where adblock will fail when this is implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time) & they do a LOT MORE FOR YOU as the end user consumer of the internet also - period/no questions asked...
...apk
> I need to somehow automagically figure out what device you are using,
> the screen sizes, interface capabilities, etc. and CUSTOMIZE
> my style sheets (one more nail in the fucktard coffin) just for your device.
Dear web-developer... PLEASE stop strying to customize for what you think my browser+device combo is. You are a pain in the ass. I use 3 different browsers at times, all on Linux...
1) Firefox under linux. When I go to live365.com internet radio, with the native user agent, part of the player selection menu is missing, and I can't play music, When I fake the user agent as Firefox on Windows, it works properly.
2) When I go to various sites with Opera, on my desktop, they seem to think it's "Opera Mobile", and I get the crappy mobile site. Mobile sites are such a bleeping joke that XKCD laughs at them... http://xkcd.com/1174/ http://xkcd.com/869/ I have to lie about the user agent to get the desktop version web page.
3) Ditto for uzbl, which is a webkit-based desktop browser. Some web sites see "webkit" and think it's a mobile browser.
Dear web developers... if I *WANTED* to go to "m.bad.example.com" I'd go there. If I ask for "bad.example.com", without the "m", please respect my wishes.
Hint for web developers... you can get away with one web site for mobile and desktop. Smartphones no longer have 240x160 pixel displays. Retina screens can have resolutions equivalant to regular desktops. And smartphones have this ability called pinch-and-zoom. A couple of rules to follow...
1) Allow resizing, so that pinch-and-zoom works.
2) Avoid Schlockwave Trash, and you'll be viewable vy iphone/ipad users
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
I know sites that do this literally since ages, simply by putting a simple message below the ad -> if the user blocks the ad he sees the appeal message. No javascript required.
I second that whole-heartedly. When I'm at a friend's house and their TV is on, the first few ads are new to me, and possibly interesting, but I can't ever get over how they just keep going on and on endlessly. This is then immediately followed by the realization that said friends are paying to see and hear those ads.
Really, when Congress has to drop the important work their doing just to pass a bill like the CALM Act, that says quite a bit about the type of people we're dealing with.
Your post reads like fucking spam.
Go easy on the bold, caps and bullshit sonny
It is ridiculous to question the ethics of ad-blocking. I'd question the ethics of advertising everywhere instead. It is certainly amusing to read such a right wing viewpoint, but also disturbing, in that there might be others who actually believe it.
Advertising has always been anti-social, and certainly needs further regulation. Of course we should have the option to opt out of it. There does not need to be the facility to milk absolutely everything for profit.
It doesn't cost much to run a web site. If you force adverts on me, I just won't look at your web site. Goodbye.
Adblock Edge and other open source blockers. Do they get thrown under the bus?
1. Stop making ads so annoying, loud, dangerous to computers.
2. People won't use adblocking software.
I am morally opposed to using adblock software, but I use it anyways. Mainly because while watching TV shows online, they play the same commercial about 25 times during the course of an episode, and at approximately 15x the volume of the show, even managing to circumvent my system volume, AND they come last with shit spyware/adware/viruses that I don't have time to deal with.
If advertisers and the content companies would fix the problems with online advertising, I would gladly accept it, but I'm not watching 2 hours of ads for a half hour show at 10x the volume while my super-computer grinds to a half from the bullshit packaged with them. I want you to make money, I want to be a part of that, I want content on the internet to be profitable. But I sure as hell won't deal with the horrible ad policies and strategies thrust at us presently. I like to know what products are out there, especially as they relate to my interests. I want to be informed about new products and services I haven't heard of or didn't know existed.
Nonetheless, these dumbasses will just escalate this arms race because obnoxious, repetitive, evil, disgusting ads are apparently all that matters. They are so annoying that when I have to watch them, I make a point to avoid the products, because it pisses me off so much. They are so obsessed with finding a way to get more gold out of the goose that lays the golden eggs they are close to slitting its throat and losing it all. If your content is ruined by poor, shitty ads, the fact simply that people will start ignoring your content. Rely on less invasive and safer ad services or find other ways to monetize.
That isn't even getting into the new idea of these ISP usage limits, if you stream tv shows and 1/3rd of the time is ads, you are killing 1/3rd of your data cap with fucking advertisements. That is totally unacceptable, like paying for cable and having to watch ads. You get either subscription OR ads, NEVER both. Not by me anyways. If I can't watch your show without having cable, I either won't watch it, or if it is one of my favorite series I will pirate it. Either let me watch it with basic, minimally invasive non-repeating ads, purchase it for less than 5 bucks an episode somewhere online, or it will be pirated because nobody is dealing with your bullshit.
Thinks are simple, when an AD is forced upon my throat, I boycott the product?. And I telle this to the client of the Ad agency, that since its brand is now for me a sign of trouble, I avoid it. When they lose business because of their ads, they will think more carefuully before overflowing us with them.
And do not tell me about the "ad sponsored servcies". I do not appreciate at all to pay for facebook or other piece of crap each time I buy something.
The ad sponsored business model is nothing but parasitism.
And any other ad server get disabled scripts. Picture do not get loaded either if you block major ad network (adblock, host file etc...).
The ONLY workaround is putting *all* ads as being served by teh website you contact. Good luck with that.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Ain't our problem if your business model doesn't work. Your site goes down, we go elsewhere, you unhappy, we unchanged.
Are the days of antivirus numbered?
The real reason people use "Ad" Block is not to block ads, but to stop third-party websites from tracking us.
After faithfully watching Tekzilla for years and even buying stuff from their advertisers, they did this. Now I they want me to o-en my browser to all sorts of nonsense to see their shows. FU Tekzilla, I went cold turkey on you.
That's because it is spam. apk is one of the most notorious/infamous trolls/spammers on slashdot. Surprised you haven't heard of him or his hostfile fetish.
The footnote. I don't see Anyone claiming "such-and-such doesn't count". Plus, Your use of "Googleits" and "cult of Jobs" moved You in My Mind, and possibly in the Minds of several Others, from "Angry Potential Customer" to "Hate Filled Stereotyper".
I'm still looking for a fast router that allows me to use a host file with at least 250000 entries - the file I'm currently using within my notebook. In this case all content within my local area network (tv, sat receiver, mobile phone and my computer systems) would be filtered the way I like. Remaining ads would be killed by NoScript, AdBlock (using local rules by configuring them by using a file URL and by deleting references to the original update site).
Such a router should contain a good firewall as well
Like many posters above have stated, I'm pretty much morally against using adblockiing, but I feel from a bandwidth and security management perspective that AdBlock is a must. I'm stuck with satellite internet, which while very fast, has a fairly low 10GB limit during peak hours. I could get a bigger package, but that simply isn't in the budget right now. With more and more wireline ISPs implementing data caps, I don't want to waste my precious MBs on loud, annoying video ads and bloated scripts.
I even subscribed to Hulu Plus thinking I was going to get an ad-free experience. Boy was I wrong. The ads were higher resolution (and presumably at a higher bitrate) than the shows I was trying to watch. More often than not, they tended to repeat the same ads over and over. Funny thing, the ads didn't appear to cache so I was downloading the same hi-def ads 3 and 4 times for a 20 minute episode. I promptly canceled my subscription, and I don't think I've visited Hulu since.
I accept the fact that advertising is a necessary evil for a free internet, but I feel like I'm getting nickle-and-dimed every time I turn around. From wasting my time with unskippable, loud, obnoxious video ads that are showing products I can't afford to "click-baiting" websites that put their content in a slide-show format to increase clicks and ad-views; all of it is wasting my bandwidth that I'm paying handsomely for. Here's the thing, advertisers/content providers: I charge more per second for my attention span than you are giving me product in return. I want some of that money back.
Off topic point: If ISPs are going to enforce asinine data caps, at least exempt the ad servers from those caps. I really don't want to pay to watch an ad; that's why I also no longer have cable/satellite. Thank GOD advertisers haven't (yet?) broken into my house and inserted pop-up ads into my books.
I'll simply cease visiting the site.
This is already a reality for overly-annoying sites who lile to pop up full page sized bullshit when visited. ( especially so on mobile where your odds of hitting the close button vs the hot spots all around it are low )
Want visitors to your site ? Make it a good experience, explain it to other sites that the reason folks block this shit is because it's annoying and a vector for malware. ( as is js, thus no-script )
People do not like ads once they become annoying. ( see dvr tech for examples of this on the cable side of things. I do NOT watch a show without one because I don't want to sit through the bullshit every few minutes )
Once you force me to endure them, I am done with your services all-together.
Slathered with half a dozen blinkenlights and running unknown code from mystery nth parties is not how I want my pages rendered.
If the advertising industry wasn't intrusive, malware-laden crap, I might reconsider. Cold day in hell when that happens...
If people want to play chicken with their websites by getting into an arms race over adbocking...let them. It will ultimately be the end of their website. Piss off your user base and watch your traffic diminish and your ad revenue as well. There will always be a community that will step up to the adblock plate and up the anti.
Why? I'm sick of paying for bandwidth that gets used to inundate me with larger and more obnoxious adverts.
Article submitter here: Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization) vs. addons + DNS in A-C below:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators here for sites) & hosts do MORE 4 YOU in speed, security, reliability + anonymity - no questions asked...
...apk
(Posting as AC because I don't want to deal with the Streisand-fall out in my inbox based on the last time I went against Slashdot Groupthink.)
You obviously do not run any websites that get substantial traffic.
Do you know how time consuming and hard it is to "find another way to monetize"? I resisted ads for years because I hated them. I made up stickers and t-shirts for people to buy. I might profit $30 by selling merchandise on a good month. This is after all the time I spend processing and packaging things to send off, time I would rather spend improving my website and adding new features.
I have tried selling my own ad space to host ads on my site. It takes a lot of time and energy to coordinate with the advertiser, if I'm lucky enough to have one. By "advertiser" I mean it is just a fan of the site who is doing it more as a donation than anything.
My hosting bill is $140 a month. I have other costs on top of it too. (PO box, SSL certs, domains, Vimeo fees, lawyer fees, trademark fees, Apple Developer fees, etc) I covered these costs out of my own pocket for nearly a decade now.
After spending a ton of time trying out alternate means of income (and debating about just shutting the site down), I recently found one that worked. I have about $150 a month coming in now and it takes zero amount of my time to administer. I have more time now to actually spend working on my website and frankly, I'm more excited about working on it since the website is no longer a money pit.
The solution was a single block of Google AdSense HTML. I'll gladly get rid of the ads once a widely used micropayment system exists (and Internet users will actually part with 1/1000th of a cent), but we are a long way off on that.
... finally proven wrong?
Thank you!
I don't hate ads, I loathe them - to the extent that I actively avoid buying products that I see advertised. When a large supermarket started putting up adverts on the in-store tannoy system I switched to another supermarket. There are people who don't mind adverts or even like them - they don't have ad blocking enabled. Those who have ad blocking are people who are unlikely to be positively influenced by the ads, and are even likely to avoid the advertised product or the site if a way around ad blockers is implemented.
> Then YOU get to ask YOURSELF whether YOU want to take the risk of running THEIR scripts on YOUR system in order to read/watch THEIR content.
Very Much This. And for me, the answer is most of the time a resounding NO.
Yes, I know, the bias is very much the other direction around here. That's because most of us make money by pushing around Javascript. Web 2.0 and all that. You know what? Thanks, but no thanks.
HEY ADVERTISERS! I DON'T MIND YOUR ADS! I'LL EVEN READ THEM! BUT DO STUFF YOUR ACTIVE CONTENT UP YOUR @$$#$!!! I'M NOT EVEN SEEING IT!!!
I'd bet most of these widgets require jQuery primarily because jQuery makes old IE less painful to deal with. It should become easier to deal with after mid-April when extended support for Windows XP ends. At that point, every supported Windows OS will have IE 9 or later either installed or available through Windows Update. And once support ends for Windows XP, web developers can presume it insecure. This means it will become unwise for a web site to let the user of IE on XP do anything requiring any level of security, such as paying with a card or even entering his password.
My main reason for blocking ads...flashing brother some ads Its like trying to read with some jack-off flashing a flashlight in my eyes so all flash ads are blocked. 2 malware/viruses they cant guarantee a malware/Virus free ad network and wont take responsibility for MY computers if they get infected. And 3rd i don,t free bad for blocking ads/malware/viruses because Ive already paid in over inflated prices for products to pay for the advertising so no thanks Ive already donated.
Jack of all trades,master of none
If you have a "form" on a page and want to be able to work with it, without having the entire page reload, your ONLY option is JS. There are NO OTHER OPTIONS.
Of course there's another option: having the entire document reload, and redefining "entire document" to make it less painful. Make the form a separate document so that reloading the form doesn't reload everything else. This is how Slashdot's comment submission form worked before D2 was introduced, and how it still works if you open "Reply to This" in a new window, and how it still works in (say) stock phpBB. And people who prefer not to run non-free JavaScript (or any JavaScript at all) on their computers can still use it. And if static documents aren't interactive enough, implement a native application. For example, instead of a web-based forum like Slash or phpBB, put up an NNTP server to which any NNTP client can connect.
You simply cannot do 99% of what people expect in a "Web 2.0" experience
People who dislike JavaScript don't want a "Web 2.0" experience. They want a separation of applications and documents. They want HTML to be documents and EXE to be applications.
You're wishing to go back to a pure static page environment, or worse, a dynamic one where to do the SIMPLEST activity requires a GET or POST to a separate page requiring server side code to operate, create a dynamic page just for you, and then return it.
This is how Slashdot operated before D2, and there are apparently a lot of people who prefer how Slashdot operated before D2.
The only way to do anything again would be native code, thereby shutting out quite a bit of valuable innovation in the markets by startups that could have never afforded the resources for large coding shops that could keep track of code for multiple platforms.
A coding shop is supposed to first release a Windows application that has been tested in both Windows and Wine, and then use the money it earned by selling copies of the Windows version to hire developers to make a version for OS X. Or the other way around, if it's a Mac shop. Keeping the application logic (the "model") and presentation (the "view") separate makes it easier to maintain versions for both Windows/Linux and OS X. Or expose a network protocol that third-party native clients can use, such as NNTP or some REST-based API like Twitter and Amazon and eBay use.
The native code companies are cratering because they can't begin to hope to keep up with the SAAS companies using open source frameworks and rapid cross platform development to push out fixes and features in weeks instead of 3 years.
So why can't native code companies come up with frameworks to make native code development just as efficient?
Registering a CDN in the browser as servicing a particular domain
Who would be the authority for such registration?
Why would I host my own scripts AND pay the CDN?
Because historically, several CDNs have offered services only for static files, such as CSS, JavaScript, images, and video, not for dynamically generated HTML documents.
Please kill yourself.
Depends on your ability to read javascript. I did this a few times with some pages that annoyed me.There is usually a variable defaulted to faulse. Then they load a script, which sets it to true. Then they check it later if it is set or not. If it is set to false, they display an overlay "you're using an adblocker we are so poor and you evil scammer ripoff cheating childporn pirate terrorist are cheating us off our well deserved ad revenue, go away".
Just let the script which sets the variable to true slip through with adblock plus with an exception for it and block the rest.
Problem solved.
As Bill Hicks would put it: "If you work in advertising, kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fuckin soul."
Despite backing up Bill's statement to it's fullest extent, I would like to take the chance to introduce some alternatively valid, tiny criticism to all this action being taken by advertisers, advertiser-backed companies and "advertisement enforcers":
TAKE THE FUCKIN HINT - If we use ad blockers, it's because we'd rather have your page fully messed up, your online game unplayable, your newspaper news unreadable, to abiding to deal with the consumerism-centered policies that brainwash us to pay for things we do not need. You want to make money out of the publicly available resource which the internet is since its creation? Provide me a better service by not using ads in the first place and I will be sure to drop some money on your premium services. And by premium I don't mean the ones without ads, I mean the ones where you actually had to work for, unlike whatever web-app reinventing the wheel you developed last Thursday and put ads on linked to your PayPal account.
Adblock doesn't block as much malicious content as hosts & is dead per the article (article submitter here): Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators here for sites) & hosts do MORE 4 YOU in speed, security, reliability + anonymity - no questions asked...
...apk
failing to load make essential web applications useless? That sounds like hotlinking of images which I've always understood to be a dickhead move on the part of web designers.
Some web sites tolerate or even encourage hotlinking for specific images, especially images that the web designer reserves the right to update (such as the "right now on eBay" logo used by eBay API clients). Remember the old image-based hit counters from the GeoCities era?
As for the registering of the CDN, I think you misunderstood me. The site itself would register a CDN as part of the domain through instructions in the XHTML.
That sort of "registering" a particular CDN for a particular URL would be little different from just hotlinking.
I believe this would simplify work flow and allow you to swap out a CDN without touching a single line of code in the rest of the site.
I'm starting to understand what you mean if these CDN registration rules look like, say, HTTPS Everywhere rewrite rules.
Even better, you could register known external objects that are community approved.
Approved by what community?
Meaning, your XHTML does not have to reference the exact Google Analytics script, but to a common reference point that allows Google to normalize that code to whatever they want.
That can already be done with the existing URI framework by placing the reference point as a path within a hostname under google.com.
Privacy laws could be amended to state that bypassing the user preferences in the browser is illegal. Wasn't Google guilty of that anyways with something?
Google got in trouble for adding a P3P privacy policy header that essentially amounted to "Our privacy policy is too complex to express as a machine-readable policy using P3P syntax; see [some URL] for a human-readable policy." What should Google have added instead? Or should Google have thrown up an alert to the effect "Your browser's privacy policy interpreter is too old; this and this feature will be disabled unless you install Google Chrome"?
Netflix could tell it was blocked and pop-up a dialog box informing that certain features will now be missing AND list them.
Any other site could likewise social engineer users into turning on tracking by arbitrarily disabling features until the user enables the tracking.
If the user base sends out a message loud and clear that says, "Don't Track Me", I don't see why they get to continue violating privacy.
Web sites could implement DNT but use both carrot and stick to social engineer the user into turning off DNT. The carrot: "We know you're tired of seeing advertisements that aren't relevant to your interests. For example, single men probably don't want to be subjected to ads for feminine hygiene products. To make sure you see the most relevant offers, please disable Do Not Track in your web browser." The stick would be to arbitrarily disable features: "Some features of $sitename require a subscription or an invitation code. To get your invitation code sooner, please disable Do Not Track in your web browser."
They just don't get it ... since 1993. If you make ads so obtrusive and annoying that it's difficult to ignore the ones that don't interest me, I'm going to block all of them. If some Web sites start bypassing my blocks, that's means they are aware that I'm not interested in their ads BUT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE ME LOOK AT THEM ANYWAY. I'll stop visiting. There aren't many Web sites on the Internet so unique and so compelling that I can't give them up if they start annoying the shit out of me. I just don't understand why they don't get that.
I just don't use the site. Hulu? Sorry, if you're going to serve me ads, I won't use your service. It's only fair, right?
I have yet to found a website that was so awesome that I just had to turn off my ad blocker to use it. Heck, I probably wouldn't use half the Internet if I had to view ads while using it.
Hosts can't be stopped by ClarityRay & do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators here for sites) & hosts do MORE 4 YOU in speed, security, reliability + anonymity - no questions asked...
...apk
Betteridge law of headlines applies:-
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." It is named after Ian Betteridge, a British technology journalist, although the general concept is much older. The observation has also been called "Davis' law" or just the "journalistic principle".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
Hosts also do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons = more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work (multiplatform) on MORE than browsers addons are limited to - hosts work on ANY webbound program (e.g. email programs) & adblock fails when ClarityRay is implemented (only a matter of time) + hosts do MORE (getting back speed paid for ads leech, & add safety vs. not only malicious ads but also botnet C&C servers + redirected DNS servers & more)...
...apk
I think the plan is to display an empty page to anyone who uses ad-blocker. Watch our ads or watch nothing at all. Could come. Will come.
ClarityRay can't affect hosts files: Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization) vs. addons + DNS in A-C below:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators here for sites) & hosts do a lot MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + anonymity even...
...apk
If you're willing to let just anyone run arbitrary code you your computer you've got something else coming. If a site doesn't have at least basic functionality without java-script, I usually just skip it.
Adblock doesn't block as much malicious content as hosts & is dead per the article (article submitter here): Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization) vs. addons + DNS in A-C below:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews $ = motivator here for sites) & hosts do a lot MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + anonymity even...
...apk
Automated: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
Adblock's dead per the article (article submitter here)!
Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators here for sites) & hosts do MORE 4 YOU in speed, security, reliability + anonymity - no questions asked...
...apk
If you want to sell a poster, then sell a poster, where you get to design 100% accurately and controlled the "experience" of the user.
However, markup means that the presentation is up to the client, NOT THE DESIGNER.
Here's a stark example. I am blind. I visit your site. How did your designer intend a blind person to see the web site?
Another: I'm red blind.
Another: bad sight.
YOU should not be trying to put on a computer screen what you design to be on a poster, because they are not the same thing.
Article submitter here: Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization) vs. addons + DNS in A-C below:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Addons = more complexity & room for breakdown + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews $ = motivator here for sites) & hosts do a lot MORE for added speed, security, reliability, + anonymity even...
...apk
I'd love an online service that I'd charge occasionally with some money and when I go to a site that pays its bills via ads, it is paid from my account that $0,001 and all the ads are hidden.
Since no one seems to want my money enough to come up with a solution like that -- I keep using AdBlock. I won't buy anything because of those ugly ads, anyway.
@ position 4:27 on the player "You are NOTHING to me: 1 by 1, I will DESTROY you - I will never tire. I will never show mercy. I will never stop, until each & every 1 of you, are dead..." - Ultron6 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-Ar-LTeYk
(Especially since the NEXT Avengers flick ("The Age of ULTRON") will have him in it - voiced by a fav. 'thespian' of mine, Mr. James Spader!)
* Which, of course, based on your b.s. trolling reply? I've quite OBVIOUSLY already destroyed YOU in some capacity in the past!
(Hence your effete "retaliatory reaction" - & all you have now's off-topic illogical non-sequitur failed ad hominem attack attempts + you FAIL @ validly disproving points I made in favor of hosts files adding speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity for users of them)
APK
P.S.=> Keep it up - After all: You're only making ME look GOOD, & yourselves? LOL, well... "not so good"...
... apk
And? This will just be the impetus for the next generation of blocking ads. For example, just from reading the description, I thought of a construct whereby the original page mark up is never touched. However, the plugin hides it, and copies non-js elements to a new container sans ad content. It provides new event handlers to the old controls so javascript functionality still works. Now, your monitoring app is broken.
@ position 4:27 on the player "You are NOTHING to me: 1 by 1, I will DESTROY you - I will never tire. I will never show mercy. I will never stop, until each & every 1 of you, are dead..." - Ultron6 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
(Especially since the NEXT Avengers flick ("The Age of ULTRON") will have him in it - voiced by a fav. 'thespian' of mine, Mr. James Spader!)
* Which, of course, based on your b.s. trolling reply? I've quite OBVIOUSLY already destroyed YOU in some capacity in the past!
(Hence your effete "retaliatory reaction" - & all you have now's off-topic illogical non-sequitur failed ad hominem attack attempts + you FAIL @ validly disproving points I made in favor of hosts files adding speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity for users of them)
APK
P.S.=> Keep it up - After all: You're only making ME look GOOD, & yourselves? LOL, well... "not so good": So, Take your own 'advice'. Why? Well, you can't manage to do that to me, troll (& a 1,000 like you before you couldn't - you lack the know-how in the art & science of computing...)!
... apk
Adblock doesn't block as much malicious content as hosts & is dead per the article (article submitter here): Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work, where adblock will fail when this is implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time) & they do a LOT MORE FOR YOU as the end user consumer of the internet also - period/no questions asked...
...apk
You're welcome to prove what computer-technically was said in it then, that was bullshit on my part...
I'm that confident you can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity - A "shotgun" approach that's nigh ubiquitous & versatile + proof to ClarityRay tech too (browser addons like adblock aren't), no less...
* :)
... & as usual? I also make hosts that much easier + far better - up to its potential in maximum efficiency for massive effecacy in the areas noted above... via a program, by yours truly...
APK
P.S.=> Fact: Watch him pull a "Run, Forrest - RUN!!!", & avoid my challenge (since, to anyone reading with 1/2 a brain, the ac poster is an obvious cowardly troll)...
... apk
"he's probably a quivering puddle of jello having his paranoid delusions of being persecuted by trolls take over his psyche completely" - by Mister Transistor (259842) on Friday January 17, 2014 @09:03PM (#45994667)
It's fact you can't disprove my points on hosts files giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
* :)
---
QUESTION: Has a libelous troll such as yourself done a better program in this area? Answer = No!
(One that works vs. ads + threats in them & from other sources of malicious content giving users more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online, despite ClarityRay (which blows adblock's doors off)).
LMAO - No, an untalented technically weak trolling WORM (you) wastes his life trolling & helps me prove my points... lol!
---
Additionally - I don't miss giving dolts such as yourself a spanking, just as I have now with ease!
You & yours (trolls) make it (you KNOW I've just GOTTA say it) just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'", making ME look good, & yourselves? Well, lol... "not so good". You do it to yourselves.
Especially when I can easily evidence that someone like ME actually DOES something about the problem noted in the article (I am also the submitter of it) that's a SUPERIOR solution vs. browser addons & even DNS -> http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... shooting down a scumbag like you, publicly (I bet you're USED to that) with EASE as I have now in a post I submitted that's approximately @ 720++ post views strong & growing letting everyone see just how effete you are.
APK
P.S.=> Trolls like you make me laugh - & IF you *think* your outright stupidity is "harming me"? Clue/New NEWS/NewsFlash - you're making ME stronger by either bogusly downmodding my posts on hosts (w/out validly technically justifying why) &/OR your off topic illogical effete trolling!
... apk
Disprove my points that hosts add security, speed, reliability, & anonymity -> http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...
(Your evasion of doing so only proves that flooring a weasel like yourself is done just "too, Too, TOO EASILY" by myself, every single time you try it... you're completely pitiful - Scumbag weasels like yourself are what I call "not men", and you KNOW you are, I certainly do, as would anyone else here reading with 1/2 a brain... lol!)
* :)
Fact: You fail!
(Not only in disproving my points in hosts files efficacy + UNDENIABLE superiority vs. AdBlock, Ghostery, Request Policy (& even shoring up DNS faults) in adding speed, security, reliability, and even a degree of added anonymity for users of hosts files... but, you fail @ life itself I'd wager!)
APK
P.S.=> After all - It's not MY fault you're a trolling waste of life failure - it's your own!
I strongly wager you're either a malware maker, botnet master, advertiser, or creator of an INFERIOR solution for adblocking that's about to see its 'end of days' due to ClarityRay - or, just another "/. wannabe expert' I've torn apart technically on this subject, or others!
(In fact, I wouldn't DOUBT you're the other big talking punk, replying as ac this time, that I floored in my other reply (his 'name' here is Mister Transistor - a 'big talker' that hasn't accomplished shit... lol!)
How dirtbags like you can live with yourself, I will never understand...
... apk
Not sure why this is marked as insightful. If you're a modern web developer, you'd know that most mobile devices created in the last couple of years render a sane implementation of javascript with no problems. Currently manufactured devices have ridiculous system specifications. In fact, there are a lot of great libraries to support mobile devices. A hatred for javascript is like a hatred for email, because it's a vector of advertising annoyance.
Of what's in the post I replied to. Ghostery: Stooping to NEW lows.
Yay! I've been APK'ed!!
Thanks, glad to see you're not dead. ;)
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Is Adblock when ClarityRay gets implemented, and it WILL be, no questions asked since it brings back website's ca$h to them from ad views/clicks they lose due to adblock!
Bad enough adblock's already crippled by default (it should be called "almost all ads blocked" nowadays), however, since HOW it works is its undoing vs. clarityray!
ClarityRay doesn't affect hosts files: Period. Hosts use entirely DIFFERENT mechanics (superior ones that do a better job of adblocking, but also speeding up your favorite sites where you spend the MOST time online, as well as securing you + making those favorites more reliable (vs. downed or redirect poisoned DNS servers, which also proofs you vs. fastflux botnets as well as malicious content on sites).
* Still, bottom-line here is that You need to GROW UP man... seriously!
I mean - wtf is the matter with you, that you "get off" on trolling others? How old are you?? 12???
(Don't you have BETTER things to do????)
APK
P.S.=> Do something worthwhile in the art & science of computing that actually HELPS others, as I have, giving them more speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity instead of being what YOU projected in statements about myself - a quivering sick little troll that's obviously some miserable about life sick pest - seriously: My impression of you, based on how you act, is that of a little teen with serious issues...
... apk
Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization) vs. addons + DNS in A-C below:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Addons = more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode: hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
P.S.=> Hosts work - adblock fails when ClarityRay's implemented on a large scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators for sites) & hosts do MORE 4 YOU in speed, security, reliability + anonymity - period...
...apk
So I indicate to you, by using AdBlock, that I hate advertising and do not wish to see any (from which you could deduce that showing me advertisements would be useless at best and counterproductive at worst), yet you choose to force ads down my throat anyway? Well fuck you then.
Adblock doesn't block as much malicious content as hosts & is dead per the article (article submitter here): Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently& see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work, where adblock will fail when this is implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when $ = the motivator for sites) & they do a LOT more for you in added speed, security, reliability & even anonymity...
...apk
AdBlock/Ghostery/Requestpolicy FAIL: Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)
Summary:
---
A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,
C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).
---
* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work where adblock will fail when ClarityRay's implemented on a larger scale (only a matter of time when pageviews & $ are the motivators here for sites) & hosts do MORE 4 YOU in speed, security, reliability + anonymity - no questions asked...
... apk